Legal Opinion

Mullen v. Horton

Connecticut Appellate Court

Decided September 23, 1997No. AC 15380PublishedCited by 35 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

HEIMAN, J.

The plaintiff appeals from the trial court’s rendering of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the trial court improperly determined that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the defendants, Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate, Inc., of New Hampshire and Franco-American Oblate Fathers, Inc., (Oblate institutional defendants) are vicariously liable for the defendant priest’s actions under (1) the doctrine of *761respondeat superior or (2) the doctrine of apparent authority.1 We agree with the plaintiff and reverse…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Miller v. United Technologies Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1995
  2. A-G Foods, Inc. v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1990
  3. Conway v. Town of WiltonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
  4. Jolly, Inc. v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1996
  5. McClellan v. Health Maintenance OrganizationSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by35 opinions

  1. Jean-Charles v. PerlitzDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2013
  2. In re Michaela Lee R.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 2000
  3. Parker v. Shaker Real Estate, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 1998
  4. Davies v. General Tours, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court · 2001
  5. Doe v. Norwich Roman Catholic Diocesan Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2003

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API